the Purpose of Art...

[Pookeyhead]

I'm interested David - are you saying that image is not art?

I'm saying that the skill involved in creating it is not proportional to it's worth as art, as is the case with any work. Personally I don't consider it art, no, as it's far too derivative. I'm not saying it's not a superb photograph, as it is. It's high end commercial/social portraiture, but it doesn't communicate much to me... and it's just trying to hard to be pictorial. It's designed to impress for it's craft skills.. it's just a showcase of processing and surface bling, and I've seen it far too many times, by far too many people for it to carry any weight as art.

However.. as is the case in these threads... that will be taken as an insult by those that don't understand the following: Work does not have to be good to be art, and great photographs d not automatically make great art. You can have great work that is art too. The two are not the same thing. You can have one without the other.. or both. They aren't linked necessary.

 

[Steve T]

The quote thing has gone insane here??

In reply to you David.


Can you give an example of these accidents that have been misdecribed (sic) Steve? Just link to one of them so we know what you're talking about.

I dont have to quote an example its self explanitory

Gursky's Rhein II for example (a photo much ridiculed in here as "arty b******s) was not a "random image snapped on the hoof" either. It was created on purpose, by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. What do you think of Rhein II? Artists don't create random, accidental things. Artists respond to the world around them.

I don't think its B*******s, that is a great well planned image, well executed. But it didnt sell for that amount of money for that reason did it.

You're also thinking craft skills = art . If something is skilfully done, then it's art. It's not. That image you linked to is undoubtedly expertly done, but it's trite, derivative, dripping with over sentimentality, and quite frankly, trivial... all surface.. no substance.

If something is skillfully done to create something intentionally, that is art. A happy accident however skillfully done is not art, but of course its easy to invent origional intent

You LIKING it is irrelevant.
Not to me and the photographer.




Most artists tell you exactly what the work is about... most artists will write a statement explaining why they did what they did. No one sits around interpreting art. You can debate whether you agree with the artist or not, but you talk as if academic all sit around in a group strokey beard moment and pontificate meanings in art. That's balls.

Possibly but I do think its human nature to want to seem clever and get approval for what we do and say and therefore the temptation to fine tune what was intended often proves too much for some.

As for groups of academic beard strokers, yes, they get on my tits.

Steve.

 

[TimmyG]

I think "art" is too broad a term for this discussion. I'm not sure of the exact terminology but aren't we arguing aesthetics against conceptualism, both of which could be classed as art in their own right?3r

If so the purpose of art is either a) to look good, or b) to make you think (or some mix of both).

 

[Pookeyhead]

I dont have to quote an example its self explanitory

No it's not.. which is why I'm asking.

I don't think its B*******s, that is a great well planned image, well executed. But it didnt sell for that amount of money for that reason did it.

I never mentioned it's price, nor inferred it's worth was measured by price. It would still be a great image if it sold for £1000.

If something is skillfully done to create something intentionally, that is art.

No Steve... it's not. It's skilfully executed work, but that is not what qualifies something as art. I watched someone painting a narrow boat teh other week. It was superlative work.. painstakingly done. clearly with intent. It's not art though is it... it's just skilful work.

A happy accident however skillfully done is not art, but of course its easy to invent original intent

Can you please explain what you mean by happy accident? Seriously... just link to something, as I'm not sure what you have in mind when you talk about happy accidents.

You LIKING it is irrelevant.
Not to me and the photographer.

Liking it isn't irrelevant, no, but liking it is irrelevant to whether it's art or not. Liking it just means you like it. Liking something has never been a means of measuring whether something is art or not. Never will be either.

As for groups of academic beard strokers, yes, they get on my tits.

Fortunately, they're few and far between. You just confuse anyone who is capable of having a critical discourse about art as such because you don't agree with, and or (delete as appropriate) understand what they're on about.

You simply don't seem able to comprehend that craft skill and liking something because it's well done are not in any way prerequisites of art. That's not how art is judged. That's how SKILL is judged... but not necessarily art. Art can be worthy whether craft skill is present or not.. it's a separate thing, and you, like so many others are getting the two confused.

 

[Steve T]

Heres a link to a snap of my grandson with my son http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/a-moment.552500/

a very powerfull image in its own right but, it is simply one of 800 shots I took at my other sons wedding.
Now while the picture will create tremendous emotion it was a happy accident simply snapped on a 1000d with kit lens on auto I think..

I gave the picture the title 'A MOMENT'

And for me, thats where the bullshollocks can start. Its a very apt title and adds a deeper dimension to the image but I do not consider the image to be art so is the title the artistic bit??

Had I set out to capture 'A MOMENT' between my two boys and achieved the same result I would be more than proud of it and it would definately qualify as art in my view.

But i didnt, so it simply remains a snap to me, not something to take any pride in.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm saying that the skill involved in creating it is not proportional to it's worth as art, as is the case with any work. Personally I don't consider it art, no, as it's far too derivative. I'm not saying it's not a superb photograph, as it is. It's high end commercial/social portraiture, but it doesn't communicate much to me... and it's just trying to hard to be pictorial. It's designed to impress for it's craft skills.. it's just a showcase of processing and surface bling, and I've seen it far too many times, by far too many people for it to carry any weight as art.

However.. as is the case in these threads... that will be taken as an insult by those that don't understand the following: Work does not have to be good to be art, and great photographs d not automatically make great art. You can have great work that is art too. The two are not the same thing. You can have one without the other.. or both. They aren't linked necessary.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. It does sound a lot *to me* though that you don't like it, and for that reason it's not art to you. I'm also inclined to ask whether prior art prevents a similar piece from being art, though what seems an obvious answer to me may not line up with current thinking.

Despite all the trolling going on (and darn, it's hard to resist joining in) this is actually useful. While trying to track down an artists statement for Rhein II I came across this thread on Reddit, which does seem to offer some helpful understanding. I wonder if it would be useful to have a wiki "Understanding current thinking on photographic art" or similar that would help people and reduce the amount of heat in discussions like this?

 

[Ed Sutton]

If something is skillfully done to create something intentionally, that is art.

Indeed. But that is not the ONLY way to create art.

A happy accident however skillfully done is not art, but of course its easy to invent origional intent

You're continuing to conflate craft/skill with art. Artists in many media embrace accident.They may simply use it as a jumping off point, or they may incorporate it directly in their art.

As this is a photography forum the element of chance should be embraced, not dismissed.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Heres a link to a snap of my grandson with my son http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/a-moment.552500/

a very powerfull image in its own right but, it is simply one of 800 shots I took at my other sons wedding.
Now while the picture will create tremendous emotion it was a happy accident simply snapped on a 1000d with kit lens on auto I think..

I gave the picture the title 'A MOMENT'

And for me, thats where the bullshollocks can start. Its a very apt title and adds a deeper dimension to the image but I do not consider the image to be art so is the title the artistic bit??

Had I set out to capture 'A MOMENT' between my two boys and achieved the same result I would be more than proud of it and it would definately qualify as art in my view.

But i didnt, so it simply remains a snap to me, not something to take any pride in.

Why do you feel that effort put in makes the result more worthy? The picture is what matters, how it affects viewers, not how it was made. Nobody gives a flying fig how pictures are made.

 

[Bythesea]

While trying to track down an artists statement for Rhein II I came across this thread on Reddit, which does seem to offer some helpful understanding.

Thanks for that link, it was an interesting read. Didn't realise there were such things on Reddit.

 

[Steve T]

This thread started with this statement

"Stop thinking about artworks as objects and start thinking of them as triggers for new experiences"

Thats right up there with 'Blue sky thinking' or 'a pc gives you a window into what you are doing' or one of my favorites, 'Your work must have value'.

Only the prats that invent these phrases know what they mean, possibly... triggers for new experiences, FFS.

I'm not explaining myself here am I

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thank you for taking the time to answer. It does sound a lot *to me* though that you don't like it, and for that reason it's not art to you.

Well.. we're getting scarily close to a your word against mine scenario, but I can assure you that's not the case at all. I don't think it's art because it's extremely derivative in style. It's just not that original. There's a great deal of work I adore.. but would not class as art, simply because it was created just to impress and look cool. I suspect this image fits into that category - that it was created to impress and look good. That alone can't make an image art.

I'm also inclined to ask whether prior art prevents a similar piece from being art, though what seems an obvious answer to me may not line up with current thinking.

If it's something that's repeated constantly and often seen, then how can it be if it's just derivative?

Despite all the trolling going on (and darn, it's hard to resist joining in) this is actually useful. While trying to track down an artists statement for Rhein II I came across this thread on Reddit, which does seem to offer some helpful understanding. I wonder if it would be useful to have a wiki "Understanding current thinking on photographic art" or similar that would help people and reduce the amount of heat in discussions like this?

All I saw in that link was yet another argument with people calling art bull s**t.

Here's what Gursky says about Rhein II.

""There is a particular place with a view over the Rhine which has somehow always fascinated me, but it didn't suffice for a picture as it basically constituted only part of a picture. I carried this idea for a picture around with me for a year and a half and thought about whether I ought perhaps to change my viewpoint. ... In the end I decided to digitalize the pictures and leave out the elements that bothered me" (A. Gursky quoted in A. Ltgens, "Shrines and Ornaments: A Look into the Display Cabinet," Andreas Gursky: Fotografien 1994-1998, p. xvi)."

Simple as that. Sometimes it is. If it helps any, Gursky himself has often wondered at the value ascribed to his work with some puzzlement, and has often made critical comments about the art world that places such high value on works. Is it worth all those millions? I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't pay it, no matter how wealthy I was. That though, has nothing to do with whether it is art or not. You can't measure it by a price tag. However, if he'd just taken a picturesque, pictorial landscape image, with the usual treatment landscape images are bound to have, then this would A) be ordinary, and derivative of millions of other images, and B) would be looked at, read, and treated for it's formal, aesthetic values only (as most landscape imagery is), and not considered for anything else. Take the work "Pastoral Interlude" by Ingrid Pollard as an example. With no context.. just the images, you COULD just dismiss them as snapshots, and you would get the inevitable "Anyone could have taken that" comments by those who neither have the interest, or intellect to read about the work. The first reaction to that is. "You didn't though, did you". However, what makes Pollard's work so interesting is the context! Taking these snapshots of idyllic, rolling English countryside and placing herself awkwardly in the scene, just as millions of others do, and have done, but from the context of a black woman. Using these images to highlight the stereotype of "urbanisation" that black people are subject to. And these images are showing the English countryside from a different perspective, with text to make subtle points about how our land is ".....as manufactured and deliberate as the assumptions and stereotypes about Black people".

It's about thought and intent. To dress up work like this with fancy processing and craft skill would just mask.. no.. HIDE the intent, as everyone would just look at it, and read it as any other landscape image. It WOULD NOT WORK as intended if it was pretty. It's the thoughts and issues it raises and makes you ponder that make the work art. While the image Steve linked to is very pretty, and very skilful, it makes me think of nothing, as it was not intended to make me think anything... it was made for me to LIKE IT.. it was made to IMPRESS ME with it's "beauty". For that reason, I do not like it. I don't need my beauty spoonfed... FORCEfed. Pollard's work is not beautiful, or pretty, or outwardly skilful... I say OUTWARDLY... as they're all film shot and hand processed silver prints, then hand toned/colourised by pollard.. there IS skill here... lots of it, but it plays a backroom role.. subtly re-enforcing the feelings of nostalgia and the idyllic, romantic past by recreating typical rural holiday snaps by typically middle class and white English people. Pollard is not BOTHERED about showing off her skill.. she just has something to say, and uses her skill to say it... not impress you. She clearly doesn't give a toss if you're impressed by her "skills" as skills are just skills.. anyone can learn photographic skills.. what's the big deal? It's not exactly difficult.

 

[Pookeyhead]

This thread started with this statement

"Stop thinking about artworks as objects and start thinking of them as triggers for new experiences"

Thats right up there with 'Blue sky thinking' or 'a pc gives you a window into what you are doing' or one of my favorites, 'Your work must have value'.

Only the prats that invent these phrases know what they mean, possibly... triggers for new experiences, FFS.

I'm not explaining myself here am I

No.. you're not. You're just calling the people you don't understand prats. Quite primitive. I don't understand it... so I'll mock it.

 

[Bythesea]

All I saw in that link was yet another argument with people calling art bull s**t.

While there was a lot of that, there were also some well written posts which did manage to change a few minds, or at least get others to see things from a different perspective.

 

[Pookeyhead]

While there was a lot of that, there were also some well written posts which did manage to change a few minds, or at least get others to see things from a different perspective.

I'll have another trawl through later. Seeing so many of the brain dead comments in here, mirrored in there was just too depressing.

 

[big soft moose]

I wouldnt say that techical skill alone creates art - as there are many examples of things that are very skillfuly created but not original or creative, however you cannot (imo) be a good artist without possessing some techincal skill in your chosen medium.... If I was asked to give an example of a great piece of sculpture or carving I might say Rodin's thinker, or the venus de milo , or perhaps the work of Grinling Gibbons etc, I wouldnt choose an unmade bed or a pickled cow.

Equally in the world of painting I might say Turner, or Constable, or Ruebens, or Lowry (lots of other examples) , or if you wanted a modern example may be even Banksy , but i wouldnt chose something that looked like it was created by a three year old after too many e numbers

asked for a great piece of music i might chose something clasical like greig, or holst, or something newer like stairway to heaven or all along the watchtower, I might even include some modern Rap which can be quite clever in its use of words and concepts etc ... I wouldnt pick 4 and half minutes of silnce in B minor

asked for dram I might cite shakespear or Chaucer, but I might equally say Scorcese (spelling) or Tarantino - but I wouldnt say driving a bus round MK for four and half hours whilst reciting the lords prayer unril the fuel runs out

With photography I might suggest ansel adam, or joe cornish or charlie waite - I wouldnt select an out of focus picture of a park bench which a child with a compact could replicate

And so forth

Core point being that art imo requires both an artistic vision and the skill to realise that vision - it isnt created by throwing together any old crap and then writing a pretentious description of why its art

 

[Byker28i]

Some interesting thoughts here.

I think art should be about discussion. it's a subjective thing, so people are never going to agree over it, but if it provokes thought, discussion...

To that end I bought something from a Welsh artist on Thursday. It took my attention, drew me back to it a few times and in the end I bought it to put on a bare wall that I'd reserved for a few years now for something, but didn't know what.

It's not going to be everyones cup of tea, but I like the way it captures the light, reflections, it's a discussion piece...

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think art should be about discussion. it's a subjective thing, so people are never going to agree over it, but if it provokes thought, discussion...

Yes.. that's a large part of it. While many photographs are skilfully executed, you'd not discuss them, except to discuss it's skilful execution. It's just a picture.


I bet many peope reading this will not like Pollards work I posted above. Not the point. I didn't post it for anyone to like, I posted it in the hope that people understand the work, and therefore see past their prejudice for only liking pretty or skilful things. If you understand it, then you can't really call it crap any more. If it makes you think for just a second... "hang on.. have I ever thought anything along those lines... do I only ever expect to see black people in urban environments".. then you're getting it.

The thing is... it's an issue... it's a thing.. it's topical.

If you have 18 minutes to spare. watch this...

https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story


Then look at Pollard's work again.


Getting it?
You don't have to like it to LOOK at... you just have to appreciate what she's trying to do.

How is this pretentious, or all the other names being hurled at artists? How does this maker her a "nonce" or a "prat"? She's merely got something to say, and doing so with her imagery.

So even if you still don't appreciate it, why be derisory about the work, and the people like some of you are? What do you get out of it? Why not just hold your hand up, and have the balls to say "I just don't get it"... instead of being dismissive.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Recently seen at The Online Photographer:

Quote o' the Day: Jeffrey Ladd
"A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness."

—Jeffrey Ladd
[Quoted on Conscientious, found by Stan Banos]​

 

[Byker28i]

Did we ever do the whole quote of the original post?

Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s p*** or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art.

BRIAN ENO, IN “MIRACULOUS CURES AND THE CANONIZATION OF BASQUIAT”

 

[Byker28i]

Yes.. that's a large part of it. While many photographs are skilfully executed, you'd not discuss them, except to discuss it's skilful execution. It's just a picture.

Which we've discussed before. To many images on here are pretty, technically prefect, possibly driven by many photography magazines. Nothing wrong with that, photographs can be personal reminders, documentary pieces, or just attractive. We're fine at discussing the prettiness, the technical merits, how the image applies to the 'rules', but something challenging or outside the 'norm' is often dismissed, where actually I find them the most interesting. Just a shame thee isn't more.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Well.. we're getting scarily close to a your word against mine scenario, but I can assure you that's not the case at all. I don't think it's art because it's extremely derivative in style. It's just not that original. There's a great deal of work I adore.. but would not class as art, simply because it was created just to impress and look cool. I suspect this image fits into that category - that it was created to impress and look good. That alone can't make an image art.

I almost wonder if the packaging is too clever, the polish too shiny, and it makes the message too hard to read when one is looking for a message conveyed.... differently?

If it's something that's repeated constantly and often seen, then how can it be if it's just derivative?

So to be art, a piece must be original?

All I saw in that link was yet another argument with people calling art bull s**t.

It's interesting how the same issues come up again and again, different time, different places. You may be happy that there's a conflict, even thrive on it, but ultimately it's destructive when the 2 groups end up calling each other names and turning their backs. But that wasn't why I linked it, as pointed out by Brian.

Here's what Gursky says about Rhein II.

""There is a particular place with a view over the Rhine which has somehow always fascinated me, but it didn't suffice for a picture as it basically constituted only part of a picture. I carried this idea for a picture around with me for a year and a half and thought about whether I ought perhaps to change my viewpoint. ... In the end I decided to digitalize the pictures and leave out the elements that bothered me" (A. Gursky quoted in A. Ltgens, "Shrines and Ornaments: A Look into the Display Cabinet," Andreas Gursky: Fotografien 1994-1998, p. xvi)."

I read that - it doesn't say anything, other than shot a bad landscape and did a routine bit of cloning to fix an otherwise unusable image in post production. So it's just another derivative bit of landscape photography, printed up HUGE.

The explanation elsewhere was useful, including the context with 99cents.

Simple as that. Sometimes it is. If it helps any, Gursky himself has often wondered at the value ascribed to his work with some puzzlement, and has often made critical comments about the art world that places such high value on works. Is it worth all those millions? I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't pay it, no matter how wealthy I was. That though, has nothing to do with whether it is art or not. You can't measure it by a price tag. However, if he'd just taken a picturesque, pictorial landscape image, with the usual treatment landscape images are bound to have, then this would A) be ordinary, and derivative of millions of other images, and B) would be looked at, read, and treated for it's formal, aesthetic values only (as most landscape imagery is), and not considered for anything else. Take the work "Pastoral Interlude" by Ingrid Pollard as an example. With no context.. just the images, you COULD just dismiss them as snapshots, and you would get the inevitable "Anyone could have taken that" comments by those who neither have the interest, or intellect to read about the work. The first reaction to that is. "You didn't though, did you". However, what makes Pollard's work so interesting is the context! Taking these snapshots of idyllic, rolling English countryside and placing herself awkwardly in the scene, just as millions of others do, and have done, but from the context of a black woman. Using these images to highlight the stereotype of "urbanisation" that black people are subject to. And these images are showing the English countryside from a different perspective, with text to make subtle points about how our land is ".....as manufactured and deliberate as the assumptions and stereotypes about Black people".

It's about thought and intent. To dress up work like this with fancy processing and craft skill would just mask.. no.. HIDE the intent, as everyone would just look at it, and read it as any other landscape image. It WOULD NOT WORK as intended if it was pretty. It's the thoughts and issues it raises and makes you ponder that make the work art. While the image Steve linked to is very pretty, and very skilful, it makes me think of nothing, as it was not intended to make me think anything... it was made for me to LIKE IT.. it was made to IMPRESS ME with it's "beauty". For that reason, I do not like it. I don't need my beauty spoonfed... FORCEfed. Pollard's work is not beautiful, or pretty, or outwardly skilful... I say OUTWARDLY... as they're all film shot and hand processed silver prints, then hand toned/colourised by pollard.. there IS skill here... lots of it, but it plays a backroom role.. subtly re-enforcing the feelings of nostalgia and the idyllic, romantic past by recreating typical rural holiday snaps by typically middle class and white English people. Pollard is not BOTHERED about showing off her skill.. she just has something to say, and uses her skill to say it... not impress you. She clearly doesn't give a toss if you're impressed by her "skills" as skills are just skills.. anyone can learn photographic skills.. what's the big deal? It's not exactly difficult.

The skill thing is interesting. I've mentioned before the Yngwe Malmsteen method of learning every technique possible, then deliberately not thinking about them to create music. Seems there's quite a cross over. I'd guess the mother and child image would be the equivalent of a Dave Gilmour track.

Which we've discussed before. To many images on here are pretty, technically prefect, possibly driven by many photography magazines. Nothing wrong with that, photographs can be personal reminders, documentary pieces, or just attractive. We're fine at discussing the prettiness, the technical merits, how the image applies to the 'rules', but something challenging or outside the 'norm' is often dismissed, where actually I find them the most interesting. Just a shame thee isn't more.

Maybe it's too easy to dismiss a pretty, technically perfect image as being boring/shallow/magazine driven. Could there be a message inside from the creator? Maybe the image isn't original, like that Gursky is 'just another landscape' if that's all you can see, but the intent to convey something was there, and that's being overlooked.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Which we've discussed before. To many images on here are pretty, technically prefect, possibly driven by many photography magazines. Nothing wrong with that, photographs can be personal reminders, documentary pieces, or just attractive. We're fine at discussing the prettiness, the technical merits, how the image applies to the 'rules', but something challenging or outside the 'norm' is often dismissed, where actually I find them the most interesting. Just a shame thee isn't more.

Exactly. This is a one way street. You, me, and others of our standpoint are not only willing to enjoy, celebrate and discuss merely technical achievements, but actually produce them ourselves. There's joy to be had from a beautiful image even if it's not art, or intended to be art. It doesn't have to be art. Yet there are so many people who react with what can only be described as hate towards anything regarded as art.. genuine hate, and it baffles me.

I've just finished putting together a massive stitched panoramic of Blackpool that's 8GB is size, and comprising of 80 frames taken with a 400mm lens. It looks awesome, and prints 10 metres across at 300ppi. Is it art? Of course not. Does it matter? No. I'm not pretending it's anything other than awesome for merely what it is: MASSIVE and technically challenging. I enjoyed making it. If I posted it and someone came along and said it wasn't art, I'd agree with them.

I worked for years as a commercial photographer producing absolutely nothing that could have been described as art. (shrug).

I can dip my toe into each camp with equal facility. Maybe more in here should try that once in a while instead of being so narrow minded.

I almost wonder if the packaging is too clever, the polish too shiny, and it makes the message too hard to read when one is looking for a message conveyed.... differently?

It's not clever though. Shiny, yes, but not clever. It's formal values and polished aesthetics. As above.. nothing wrong with that. It just doesn't make it art. I'd be surprised if the author intended anything other than an impressive image, especially if it was a paying client.

So to be art, a piece must be original?

It certainly helps. If something has been done to death, then it's pretty hard to consider it as art. I'm not talking about the aesthetic treatment alone here... I'm also talking about the subject, and the posing, and the overall theme. If you wanna say anything about motherhood you'll have to try a great deal harder than the image Steve linked to earlier on, because most people will not see anything beyond the "beauty" and "skill". So why do it unless that's exactly what you want people to see first?

It's interesting how the same issues come up again and again, different time, different places. You may be happy that there's a conflict, even thrive on it, but ultimately it's destructive when the 2 groups end up calling each other names and turning their backs. But that wasn't why I linked it, as pointed out by Brian.

I think you're doing me, and others with a similar view point a great disservice. Why do I want, or thrive on conflict? I'm just struggling to understand the genuine hate for anything that's not "pretty" or showing craft skills as it's primary goal. The only thing destructive Toni is a community that perpetuates only one story, one viewpoint, and one acceptable kind of photography. Look in the landscape forum... do you not see the same stuff, over, and over again? It's re-enforced and congratulated, even though it's the same stuff over and over again. Why? Why is it that if someone posted something that didn't show much in the way of craft, but instead was cleverly thought out, and had something to say, it would be critted ONLY on it's technical merit? Why? You SO misunderstand me: I want DIVERSITY in this forum, and sadly, it's lacking. The same stuff perpetuated by the same magazines, forums, tutorials and photo sharing sites being constantly regurgitated.

I read that - it doesn't say anything, other than shot a bad landscape and did a routine bit of cloning to fix an otherwise unusable image in post production. So it's just another derivative bit of landscape photography, printed up HUGE.

The explanation elsewhere was useful, including the context with 99cents.

Oh come on. You really think that's it? Gurky took a crap landscape, and shopped some stuff out, wrote some words? That's it?

The skill thing is interesting. I've mentioned before the Yngwe Malmsteen method of learning every technique possible, then deliberately not thinking about them to create music. Seems there's quite a cross over. I'd guess the mother and child image would be the equivalent of a Dave Gilmour track.

In a way, you're right. The way some super groups just become so polished, and rehearsed, and so insular, that they just become crap to everyone except those that are still enamoured by the shiny. We get tired of the same stuff. U2 spring to mind... and yes, Gilmour to a degree. I like Roger Waters too... and some of the work is masterful in it's production. Amused to Death is one of the best sounding, best produced albums I've ever heard, but guess what.... same old crap. Ever since The Final Cut, Waters has been banging on about war in the same way, with the same vocals, and in a great many cases the same lyric..... if I hear the line "...no recourse to the law any more" in a waters track I'll buy the ****er a Thesaurus for Xmas. It's self-obsessed. Is it art? No... definitely not. Was "Wish You Were Here" art? Probably. But you can't keep flogging the same dead horse forever.

Maybe it's too easy to dismiss a pretty, technically perfect image as being boring/shallow/magazine driven. Could there be a message inside from the creator? Maybe the image isn't original, like that Gursky is 'just another landscape' if that's all you can see, but the intent to convey something was there, and that's being overlooked.

Even now, you have trouble separating the two things... art and skill. It's no more easy to dismiss a pretty shiny image as shallow than a snapshot. If an image communicates nothing, then that's because it probably never intended to. Even strong images that don't have context to support them allude to something more. They make you think.. "Hang on... what's all this then", and make you try to make sense of them. The mother and child image doesn't do this. It's all there on the surface. I instantly get it, appreciate it for it's skill, then that's it. The end. There's nothing else there. It's not my wife, and it's not my child, so once I've been impressed by it's skill, what then? Nothing.. that's what... I click the next link, or turn to the next page, and I'll probably not go back. I move on to my next fix of "wow".... then move along from that. Consumer imagery.

That sounds quite damning, but believe me, I like images that exude craft and skill, but often that's all they have.. and you know what? That's fine.... I still enjoy them... but I'm not fooled into thinking it's "great work" except technically. It's great to look at. What I DON'T do is slag it off, and hurl insults at those that create it. Look at some of the comments in here.... look at the language used. It's genuinely hateful and aimed at the artists. How can you HATE a genre so much if you don't understand it or have any interest in it?

But there's also stuff that's just incomprehensibly fantastic technically.... AND is loaded with narrative, and meaning, and message. Crewdson is the obvious candidate here. Massive budget, large format, lighting that a movie director would kill for... sheer technical mastery.... but it ain't just a pretty picture. In fact, despite it's technical beauty, there's clearly something else.. a weirdness... darkness. Even if you didn't know what it was, you're like..."Why is she in the street in her night dress"... Even if it elludes you... you know there's something there that you're missing. It intrigues you, makes you need to find out.. it draws you in like the opening scene to a movie: You don't know what's going on yet... but you're committed for the long haul to find out. Some images just don't have that. "Yep... St Michael's Mount.... again".... next?

You can love both, and art can be both. When I was planning "Going Home", knowing that it was only ever going to be 4 or 5 images, I knew they had to be technically perfect and be able to print massive and have that beauty a classic fashion shoot, or landscape should have. The series on Desire paths I'm working on now, needs to be as dry as sand and stripped back to basics. It's too dangerous to make the urban scenes I'm shooting too shiny and landscapey... it will detract from the purpose. I want the viewer to look at the subject, just as Keith Arnatt wanted you to look at dog turds.

It's all photography. If you don't like art, why get upset when someone doesn't think your photographs are art?

Answers on a post card.... (shrug)

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think you're doing me, and others with a similar view point a great disservice. Why do I want, or thrive on conflict? I'm just struggling to understand the genuine hate for anything that's not "pretty" or showing craft skills as it's primary goal. The only thing destructive Toni is a community that perpetuates only one story, one viewpoint, and one acceptable kind of photography. Look in the landscape forum... do you not see the same stuff, over, and over again? It's re-enforced and congratulated, even though it's the same stuff over and over again. Why? Why is it that if someone posted something that didn't show much in the way of craft, but instead was cleverly thought out, and had something to say, it would be critted ONLY on it's technical merit? Why? You SO misunderstand me: I want DIVERSITY in this forum, and sadly, it's lacking. The same stuff perpetuated by the same magazines, forums, tutorials and photo sharing sites being constantly regurgitated.

How do I explain? You SO want diversity and creativity that you get all worked up about it, and in turn work others (including me sometimes) up. It appeared that you thrive on conflict, blunt to the point of rudeness and so determined to get the point across. If that's not the case, then I'm really glad, and sorry that it's such hard work.

Oh come on. You really think that's it? Gurky took a crap landscape, and shopped some stuff out, wrote some words? That's it?

Smiley failure.

That's why I added the comment about 99cents - I could see value in the work because of information that I acquired around it. A 600X400 web image and his brief description don't make it possible to draw any useful information from the picture, really, but seeing it in the context of earlier work and having the context of the period in which it was created helped considerably.

In a way, shopping out the bits he didn't want to be there WAS rescuing an otherwise unusable image, except that presumably he shot it knowing they would have to go already. Which is interesting from the POV of those who shoot a scene intending to adjust it later.

Even now, you have trouble separating the two things... art and skill. It's no more easy to dismiss a pretty shiny image as shallow than a snapshot. If an image communicates nothing, then that's because it probably never intended to. Even strong images that don't have context to support them allude to something more. They make you think.. "Hang on... what's all this then", and make you try to make sense of them. The mother and child image doesn't do this. It's all there on the surface. I instantly get it, appreciate it for it's skill, then that's it. The end. There's nothing else there. It's not my wife, and it's not my child, so once I've been impressed by it's skill, what then? Nothing.. that's what... I click the next link, or turn to the next page, and I'll probably not go back. I move on to my next fix of "wow".... then move along from that. Consumer imagery.

I was asking whether you might be missing something by dismissing images that were apparently 'pretty' and therefore didn't get a second look. Apparently that was missed.

That sounds quite damning, but believe me, I like images that exude craft and skill, but often that's all they have.. and you know what? That's fine.... I still enjoy them... but I'm not fooled into thinking it's "great work" except technically. It's great to look at. What I DON'T do is slag it off, and hurl insults at those that create it. Look at some of the comments in here.... look at the language used. It's genuinely hateful and aimed at the artists. How can you HATE a genre so much if you don't understand it or have any interest in it?

It's a mix of stuff - please understand that I'm trying to explain, rather than attacking you personally. While you put it in various ways, what you're telling most people here is that they produce boring crap, that their photography is pointless, worthless, artless and boring. Bird on a stick etc. You popped a pic of a PCB into the macro section - great, that might get people thinking about other topics - then harangued them for shooting nothing but bugs. On top of that there is the repeat message, not from you alone (presumably designed to provoke people to asking more & better questions of their work) that they don't think about the pictures they're taking, and it *looks* like you're attacking them for not producing art, all the while telling them that they're too stupid to produce art. That's how it *feels* - I know those are the feelings that have been produced in me, and I'm pretty sure others too, judging by the reactions.

So basically people's craft is shown worthless, and they're too stupid to do better. That's why there's flaming torches and pitchforks from the peasants.

Worth bearing in mind too that the skill and craft that 'anyone can learn' may be beyond many, possibly because of money, time or even a lack of innate ability to see pictures or use technology.

But there's also stuff that's just incomprehensibly fantastic technically.... AND is loaded with narrative, and meaning, and message. Crewdson is the obvious candidate here. Massive budget, large format, lighting that a movie director would kill for... sheer technical mastery.... but it ain't just a pretty picture. In fact, despite it's technical beauty, there's clearly something else.. a weirdness... darkness. Even if you didn't know what it was, you're like..."Why is she in the street in her night dress"... Even if it elludes you... you know there's something there that you're missing. It intrigues you, makes you need to find out.. it draws you in like the opening scene to a movie: You don't know what's going on yet... but you're committed for the long haul to find out. Some images just don't have that. "Yep... St Michael's Mount.... again".... next?

You can love both, and art can be both. When I was planning "Going Home", knowing that it was only ever going to be 4 or 5 images, I knew they had to be technically perfect, and have that beauty a classic fashion shoot, or landscape should have. The series on Desire paths I'm working on now, needs to be as dry as sand and stripped back to basics. It's too dangerous to make the urban scenes I'm shooting too shiny and landscapey... it will detract from the purpose. I want the viewer to look at the subject, just as Keith Arnatt wanted you to look at dog turds.

It's all photography. If you don't like art, why get upset when someone doesn't think your photographs are art?


Answers on a post card.... (shrug)

Some of the art will just be 'wrong' for people. She's in the street in her nightdress - that's stupid. A photo of a dog turd - stupid. Again it's not a lack of intelligence necessarily, but it IS a difference in view point, and it may be that some will reject things because they are not good or useful, even if there's a carefully-crafted message behind them. That might be considered discerning, and displaying more sense than simply swallowing it all down (art does sometimes look risible to the public, and that may well cause jealousy).

For my sins I've joined a few facebook 'landscape & scenery' groups recently. It's amazing how quickly one can become jaded looking at pictures that might have once seemed fine - hey, we're on the same page suddenly - and how few of the images that come through seem to be more meaningful than random shots of a rock in a stream at 1/3 with a waterfall 2/3 up the image, all shot at f16 with a big stopper for around 5min. Or the ones that have found a spot or formula and go back and repeat it again, and again, and again, and again. There are some that stand out - Andrew Yu is one, Muzna Butt is another (and her portrait style has already been borrowed elsewhere).

For most people their photos will just be nice pictures, maybe with a couple that stand out, and they're happy with that until they're told otherwise.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I was asking whether you might be missing something by dismissing images that were apparently 'pretty' and therefore didn't get a second look. Apparently that was missed.

I answered you. No.. that's not the case. Crewdson makes pretty work, and I do not dismiss it. I don't dismiss any work. Why are you assuming I dismiss work because I don't feel it's art? Because there's nothing there to keep me fascinated for as long doesn't mean I dismiss it.

It's a mix of stuff - please understand that I'm trying to explain, rather than attacking you personally. While you put it in various ways, what you're telling most people here is that they produce boring crap

No I'm not. When have I said they produce boring crap? Those are your words Toni, not mine. I'm saying that sometimes work is all on the surface, and has nothing other than being technically great.. and therefore not art. That's a LONG way from saying it's boring crap. I like looking at such stuff as much as the next person, but this is a discussion about art, and I just feel that such images can't be art if they're so prevalent . What I questioned was the need for people to produce the same work over and over again. I've not called anyone's work crap.

, that their photography is pointless, worthless, artless and boring. Bird on a stick etc.

Worthless and crap? Strong language Toni. I'd like you to quote me saying it's worthless crap. Calling it "bird on a stick" is a LONG way from saying it's worthless and crap. No worse than the usual "emperor's clothes" levelled at more conceptual work. Seems there's a case of double standards around here.

On top of that there is the repeat message, not from you alone (presumably designed to provoke people to asking more & better questions of their work) that they don't think about the pictures they're taking, and it *looks* like you're attacking them for not producing art,

I think you'll find I don't go into the wildlife or macro forums and start sounding of Toni. I may do in THESE threads because that's relevant in these threads, but when was the last time you saw me wade into the wildlife forum, or the macro forum and call anyone's work worthless and crap?

So basically people's craft is shown worthless, and they're too stupid to do better. That's why there's flaming torches and pitchforks from the peasants.

Utterly ridiculous. When have I said anyone's craft is worthless and when have I accused anyone of being stupid for showing craft skills?

Worth bearing in mind too that the skill and craft that 'anyone can learn' may be beyond many, possibly because of money, time or even a lack of innate ability to see pictures or use technology.

Utter crap. Anyone can learn the technical skills, and you don't need money or technology. It's not beyond anyone in here is it?? They have at least one camera, and at least one computer. What's technology got to do with anything any way? People used to learn with no technology Toni, and it wasn't that long ago. You know what, people would learn a lot MORE and a lot FASTER if they put the technology to one side for a while. For most beginners these days it's a bloody hindrance! I have to spend time getting students to unlearn stuff these days... just so we can get back to basics and start again properly without all the you tube fed BS that makes them think they're images are technically good, when in reality they're not.. they're bad, with a veneer of processing trying to hide the bad. People make it more complicated than it is because instead of just concentrating on basics and getting solid, reliable results repeatedly (which takes time and effort), they start arsing around with processing, and the basics take a back seat (because that's easy and quick and makes you feel like you're making progress).

Some of the art will just be 'wrong' for people. She's in the street in her nightdress - that's stupid. A photo of a dog turd - stupid. Again it's not a lack of intelligence necessarily, but it IS a difference in view point, and it may be that some will reject things because they are not good or useful, even if there's a carefully-crafted message behind them. That might be considered discerning, and displaying more sense than simply swallowing it all down (art does sometimes look risible to the public, and that may well cause jealousy).

Like I said.... if it's all beyond you, ro it's just wrong for you, then just shrug your shoulders and move along.. carry on doing what you do. WHy the hostility, bitterness and name calling? You talked about feelings Toni, well how about evry time you have a discussion about art, someone comes into your thread and calls you a prat, or nonce, or says stuff like,

"most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad" or

"This is pretty much the sort of w***y b*****ks which makes people think that an unmade bed is art if someone says it is".

Comments liek that just make the person look ignorant and stupid. You can't accuse me of calling them that Toni... they demonstrate it themselves.

What's interesting is when you write this...

There is a definite line of thought that suggests an image is only of value if it carries a deep and profound message, otherwise it might as well be nothing. There is another line of thinking which sees value in the things the viewer finds pleasing and no value in the things they do not. The tension between these is that both suggest images that they don't 'approve' of have no value, though the artistic side is a bit more vociferous about 'birds on sticks etc' than the non-artistic side (who usually label it in their heads as crap & move on somewhere they find interesting)..

If only they did label it as crap and move on Toni. What they do actually is pounce on every conversation about art there is going, and hurl childish insults around. Look at the comments in this thread Toni... is that labelling it as crap and moving on?

For most people their photos will just be nice pictures, maybe with a couple that stand out, and they're happy with that until they're told otherwise.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.

The problem arises when they want crit though. All hell lets loose if you even go anywhere NEAR anything that's not technical. Well.. tough. Crit is crit, you can't just ask for technical only crit... well.. you CAN... but no one ever does.


Ultimately.. I actually don't give a s**t what you think quite frankly. If anyone doesn't like what I have to say about photography, feel free to block me.

 

[Ed Sutton]

While you put it in various ways, what you're telling most people here is that they produce boring crap, that their photography is pointless, worthless, artless and boring.

That certainly applies to most of my photography. Perhaps the difference is that I can mostly tell which is the crap and which isn't (although some of my photos are deliberately boring and 'crap'). Maybe that's where the problem lies, in an ability to edit (not process...) and curate your own work. This is something I don't think gets stressed enough to hobbyists.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Well, that went well.

 

[droj]

The primary purpose of art (if I may refer to the thread title) is probably the personal expression of the artist. Perhaps meshed with this, but secondary, is the urge to share the result, to communicate. The final product (artwork) can be in major cases the result of a great struggle of process, of heroic proportions. So there's a scale of effort, and the size of the struggle may be reflected in the depth of the work.

Also, great art, especially when new, will tend to be disruptive - it will make you look (or hear .. ) in a new way.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I answered you. No.. that's not the case. Crewdson makes pretty work, and I do not dismiss it. I don't dismiss any work. Why are you assuming I dismiss work because I don't feel it's art? Because there's nothing there to keep me fascinated for as long doesn't mean I dismiss it.




No I'm not. When have I said they produce boring crap? Those are your words Toni, not mine. I'm saying that sometimes work is all on the surface, and has nothing other than being technically great.. and therefore not art. That's a LONG way from saying it's boring crap. I like looking at such stuff as much as the next person, but this is a discussion about art, and I just feel that such images can't be art if they're so prevalent . What I questioned was the need for people to produce the same work over and over again. I've not called anyone's work crap.




Worthless and crap? Strong language Toni. I'd like you to quote me saying it's worthless crap. Calling it "bird on a stick" is a LONG way from saying it's worthless and crap. No worse than the usual "emperor's clothes" levelled at more conceptual work. Seems there's a case of double standards around here.




I think you'll find I don't go into the wildlife or macro forums and start sounding of Toni. I may do in THESE threads because that's relevant in these threads, but when was the last time you saw me wade into the wildlife forum, or the macro forum and call anyone's work worthless and crap?




Utterly ridiculous. When have I said anyone's craft is worthless and when have I accused anyone of being stupid for showing craft skills?



Utter crap. Anyone can learn the technical skills, and you don't need money or technology. It's not beyond anyone in here is it?? They have at least one camera, and at least one computer. What's technology got to do with anything any way? People used to learn with no technology Toni, and it wasn't that long ago. You know what, people would learn a lot MORE and a lot FASTER if they put the technology to one side for a while. For most beginners these days it's a bloody hindrance! I have to spend time getting students to unlearn stuff these days... just so we can get back to basics and start again properly without all the you tube fed BS that makes them think they're images are technically good, when in reality they're not.. they're bad, with a veneer of processing trying to hide the bad. People make it more complicated than it is because instead of just concentrating on basics and getting solid, reliable results repeatedly (which takes time and effort), they start arsing around with processing, and the basics take a back seat (because that's easy and quick and makes you feel like you're making progress).




Like I said.... if it's all beyond you, ro it's just wrong for you, then just shrug your shoulders and move along.. carry on doing what you do. WHy the hostility, bitterness and name calling? You talked about feelings Toni, well how about evry time you have a discussion about art, someone comes into your thread and calls you a prat, or nonce, or says stuff like,

"most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad" or

"This is pretty much the sort of w***y b*****ks which makes people think that an unmade bed is art if someone says it is".

Comments liek that just make the person look ignorant and stupid. You can't accuse me of calling them that Toni... they demonstrate it themselves.

What's interesting is when you write this...




If only they did label it as crap and move on Toni. What they do actually is pounce on every conversation about art there is going, and hurl childish insults around. Look at the comments in this thread Toni... is that labelling it as crap and moving on?




I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.

The problem arises when they want crit though. All hell lets loose if you even go anywhere NEAR anything that's not technical. Well.. tough. Crit is crit, you can't just ask for technical only crit... well.. you CAN... but no one ever does.


Ultimately.. I actually don't give a s**t what you think quite frankly. If anyone doesn't like what I have to say about photography, feel free to block me.

You are, of course, right, and I am, of course, wrong. I guess you're never going to find out why there's so much hostility - even hatred - about it, and I wish I'd not posted that and wound you up further.

 

[big soft moose]

You are, of course, right, and I am, of course, wrong. I guess you're never going to find out why there's so much hostility - even hatred - about it, and I wish I'd not posted that and wound you up further.

the simple rules of discussing art - 1) anyone who dares to disagree with david is automatically wrong and stupid.

As to why theres so much hostility - see point 1

Just to pick up 1 point from David diatribe though - I wouldnt say that conceptual art is necessarily emporers clothes , i'd say that pretentious dross pretending to be conceptal art is a case of emporers new clothes ... theres a difference.

 

[droj]

We all tend to be seen as loose cannons on here partly since there's neither facial expression nor tone of voice as informants to dialogue. But I hope no-one gets sad as a result.

1) anyone who dares to disagree with david is automatically wrong and stupid.

Come on - the guy talks more sense than most of us, even if he addressed me as 'dude' once.

... i'd say that pretentious dross pretending to be conceptal art is a case of emporers new clothes ....

Pretentious dross pretending to be ANY art is a case of emporers new clothes!

 

[BillN_33]

We all tend to be seen as loose cannons on here partly since there's neither facial expression nor tone of voice as informants to dialogue. But I hope no-one gets sad as a result.

Come on - the guy talks more sense than most of us, even if he addressed me as 'dude' once.

Pretentious dross pretending to be ANY art is a case of emporers new clothes!

Unfortunately, David, who I do not know, and is probably a very good guy ………… I was going to continue, but it is really not worth it ………..



The world is in self destruct and I'm a "troll"

 

[ancient_mariner]

We all tend to be seen as loose cannons on here partly since there's neither facial expression nor tone of voice as informants to dialogue. But I hope no-one gets sad as a result.

What counts as sad? It's disappointing when things don't go in the direction hoped for, but I guess I've gained in understanding.

And I quite liked this image of people gathered outside his door. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/peasantstorchespitchforks.jpg

 

[droj]

"troll"

Daft bloody word. You young'uns!

 

[BillN_33]

Daft bloody word. You young'uns!

you're Welsh I been "up the valleys" …… plenty up there ……. and they don't even know

I quite like being a "troll" is somehow modernises me

 

[big soft moose]

you're Welsh I been "up the valleys" …… plenty up there ……. and they don't even know

I quite like being a "troll" is somehow modernises me

you best stop interfering with goats though , they don't like your kind

 

[droj]

you best stop interfering with goats though , they don't like your kind

Ow yer know that then? Bin amongst em, av yer???

 

[big soft moose]

Pretentious dross pretending to be ANY art is a case of emporers new clothes!

this is true - but conceptual tends to be where iots at for the pretentious drossites - because " its like conceptual dude and you like totally don't get it" is an easy defence to "well thats a steam pile of turd isnt it "

I wouldnt have said the gurzky's work was pretentious dross ( i don't like it and don't think it will hold its value but thats a different discussion) as i can see that it did take some talent - thesame could be said for damien hurst - there is some skill in sawing a cow in half and pickling it ... not to my taste and i wouldnt give it house room but it is an unusual idea executed skillfully.

Emins bed , or that guy who put a pile of teabags on the floor of the baltic on the other hand , imo required less talent or creativity than that possessed by a three toed sloth , and therefore isnt in my view worthy of the tag 'art' conceptual or otherwise

 

[BillN_33]

you best stop interfering with goats though , they don't like your kind

I was always "on my Bike"

 

[big soft moose]

Ow yer know that then? Bin amongst em, av yer???

Ive heard the tale of the three billy goats gruff

 

[droj]

Ive heard the tale of the three billy goats gruff

Missed my attention, that one. Want to spell it out? But 'ang on, ain't this a photographic forum???